Fox Mulder
Active Member
This is a great example of how unions are fleecing the country. This was a "pandering to unions" law in liberal California (obtained by the enormous political clout since unions have most California Democrats in their back pockets) that essentially attempted to abridge employer's constitutional rights to free speech. Read first about what they did:
NFIB.com - Unions Attack Employers' First Amendment Right to Communicate With Their Employees
And today the result--fortunately the law was struck down by a 7-2 margin. A victory for free speech and the Constitution and another strike against union fleecing! :thumbup
Supreme Court strikes down California law on unions - Yahoo! News
NFIB.com - Unions Attack Employers' First Amendment Right to Communicate With Their Employees
Unions Attack Employers' First Amendment Right to Communicate With Their Employees
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]03/12/2007[/FONT]
NFIB's Legal Foundation petitions U.S. Supreme Court to hear critical labor case
Washington, D.C.--Unions facing declining membership nationwide are trying to use state governments to silence employers from speaking with their employees about the potential disadvantages of unionization. In California, this attack on employers' free speech was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In response to this ruling, the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and protect employers' constitutional right to communicate with their employees.
The case at issue is Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, which challenges the constitutionality of California Bill No. 1889. The California statute focuses on preventing all employers that receive state funds from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the First Amendment to speak with their employees about unionization. The Ninth Circuit decision upheld this law, overruling the district court and two Ninth Circuit panels that found in favor of employers.
"This law will have a significant adverse impact on small businesses," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "Many California small businesses receive all of their operating revenue from the state for services provided under state programs. If the California statute is upheld, these businesses will be forced to give up their rights to communicate with their employees about unionization and the potential negative impacts it could have on their business."
If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to accept the case, the ruling would effectively serve as a gag order on employers' ability to properly inform employees about labor unions. With such laws being proposed by labor groups in more and more states and municipalities, the outcome of this case will extend far beyond California. In fact, the Second and the Seventh Circuits also have considered similar cases with both ruling to protect employers' free-speech rights. This inter-circuit split strongly supports the need for Supreme Court review of this case.
"The Supreme Court has an opportunity and an obligation to protect the rights of small-business owners to freely communicate to their own employees about union activities," said Harned. "NFIB's Legal Foundation urges the Court to grant review of this case."
And today the result--fortunately the law was struck down by a 7-2 margin. A victory for free speech and the Constitution and another strike against union fleecing! :thumbup
Supreme Court strikes down California law on unions - Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a California law that prohibits employers from using state money to influence employees' views on unions in their workplace.
By a 7-2 vote, the high court sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group and with the Bush administration. It ruled federal labor law pre-empted the California law adopted in 2000 and the first of its kind in the nation.
The law prohibits employers who receive state funds and grants from using the money to "assist, promote or deter union organizing." It also requires companies to maintain detailed records on how public money has been spent.
Opponents also argued the California law unconstitutionally restricted employers' speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.
California defended the law and said it simply sought to make sure the state does not subsidize an employer's union activities. The law allows the state to be neutral in labor disputes, California's lawyers said.
The Chamber of Commerce challenged the law in 2002 and won before a federal judge. But the full U.S. appeals court in California upheld the law, prompting the business group to appeal to the Supreme Court.
New York, which has a similar law, and 17 other states supported California. A number of states have been considering adopting similar laws if the California law was upheld.
The court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the law was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Congress in adopting the federal law expressly sought to protect free debate, he said.